Appeal No. 1997-3977
Application No. 08/267,579
that the art be from the same field of endeavor, clearly is
not met, as timepieces and recording apparatuses are very
different fields of endeavor. Therefore, we turn to the
second criteria, that the reference be pertinent to the
particular problem being solved.
The examiner questions (Answer, page 7) the relevance of
the difference between Wakabayashi's and appellants' problem
solved to "adding a notorious display of a monitored feature
to Roth et al." As stated above, the answer to whether
Wakabayashi is analogous art, and therefore potentially
combinable with Roth, rests on whether Wakabayashi's problem
solved relates to appellants'. Appellants provide a memory
display to allow a user of a disc reproducing and recording
apparatus to "easily confirm the cause that a reproduced sound
is interrupted" (Specification, page 3). In appellants'
device, appellants have no control over the contents of the
memory. Wakabayashi deals with displaying the memory capacity
to allow the user to time speech so that it can be stored
without overfilling the memory and losing part of the speech.
In other words, Wakabayashi displays the contents of the
memory so that the user can control the contents.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007